EuPIA Ink Compliance Verification Record

It verifies the supplier documentation and release conditions for a printing ink intended for food-contact packaging. The record captures the Statement of Composition, EuPIA GMP compliance statement, restricted substance declarations, PFAS declarations where applicable, and lot traceability. It is designed to show whether the ink can be accepted for the intended application or whether a non-conformance needs follow-up.

Use it before first approval of an ink, when a supplier changes a formulation or process, when a new lot arrives, or when a customer specification requires documented verification. It is also useful during periodic supplier reviews to confirm that documentation remains current. If the ink is not used in food-contact packaging, or if your organization does not require supplier declaration review, this template may be more detailed than needed.

Quality, compliance, packaging engineering, or supplier quality personnel usually complete it, depending on how your organization assigns material approval. The reviewer should understand the intended food-contact application and be able to compare supplier documents against the approved specification. If a migration study, functional barrier condition, or customer deviation is involved, the reviewer should coordinate with the responsible technical owner.

No. It is a verification record that helps you collect and document the evidence needed for approval, but it does not replace legal or regulatory review. Food-contact suitability may also depend on customer requirements, local regulations, migration testing, and the packaging structure. Use this template as part of a controlled approval process, not as the only basis for release.

Common issues include using an outdated Statement of Composition, reviewing a declaration that does not match the actual ink product or version, and missing supplier change-notification language. Teams also miss restricted substance declarations, forget to document functional barrier assumptions, or release a lot without traceability to the supplier certificate. This template forces those checks into one record.

Recheck whenever the supplier issues a new document version, the ink formulation changes, the intended food-contact application changes, or a new lot is received under a controlled release process. Many organizations also perform periodic revalidation during supplier reviews. The right cadence depends on your risk profile, customer commitments, and how often the supplier updates declarations.

Yes. You can add fields for customer specification numbers, approved barrier conditions, migration limits, country-specific declarations, or internal sign-off roles. If a customer requires a particular declaration format or a specific restricted substance list, add those checks directly to the review section so the record matches your approval workflow.

An ad hoc email thread is easy to lose and hard to audit. This template creates a structured record with the supplier documents, the reviewer’s decision, the reason for any deficiency, and the corrective action owner and due date. That makes it much easier to show what was reviewed, what was missing, and why the lot was accepted or held.